To get a little back on topic, here's what Phil Hendrie had to say about Michael Moore, "Michael Moore has every right in the world to say whatever he wants. But I have the right to say he's full of dung...and looks it too." Hendrie stated that Michael Moore was just trying to make a splash and being oppurtunistic and Moore doesn't really believe what he says, "If he wanted to make a splash all he had to do was jump in the hotel pool." Yes very cheap I know, but so was Mic Foley

A: I care that Iraq is an inferior country. I care that the United States is putting its nose where it does not belong. I care that the United States has this undying desire to police the globe. Iraq is an inferior country in our perception. The people of Iraq lead a different type of life than Americans, but since they are different, we see them as wrong when the fact is that the only thing wrong with Iraq is their leader. A man who rules by fear and force is never going to get any sympathy from me. Iraq poses no direct threat to the United States militarily, socially, or economically. They are their own entity and if we really wanted Hussein out of there, we would lead by example, not by force. Maybe there is a way to show the people of Iraq that if they are really as disgusted by their country's government as our media would have us believe, that they can rise against their oppressor and take control by themselves. Hell, I might even be ok with us providing these theoretical revolutionaries with firearms. The use of the word inferior when referring to common criminals, rapists, and murderers is too black and white, but that is a debate for another thread. B: No, I do not believe in evil in the absolute sense. I have no religious affiliation, so the christian definition of evil does not mean jack to me, and that is the only one that I know of. I do not think that man can be innately evil, it is just not in our nature. On the other hand, I do not know what is wrong with Saddam Hussein. He is sadistic if the reports are in fact true. But evil? I don't know about that. As for terrorists, I don't believe they are evil. Hopefully you wouldn't think I was evil for believing so strongly in something that I would be willing to die for it. Muslim fundamentalists believe very strongly in their religion and are willing to fight for it, even if it means killing thousands of innocent people simply for a difference of the image of God. Is this evil? I don't think so. But it is incredibly stupid and frustrating, not to mention counterproductive.

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. -Malcom X

Originally posted by KidbrooklynPlease don't even offer to come up with an argument disputing my claim of foul concerning Jeb giving his brother the presidency. Just sigh.

I find it humorous that you just want me to accept your bogus argument, probably because its indefensible. Bush won the popular vote(with the paramaters Gore selected) and would have won with damn near any standard possible)

Originally posted by KidbrooklynPalpatine:

A: I care that Iraq is an inferior country. I care that the United States is putting its nose where it does not belong. I care that the United States has this undying desire to police the globe.

Did you complain when the US was in Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti or Somalia? Just checking for consistency...

Originally posted by KidbrooklynHell, I might even be ok with us providing these theoretical revolutionaries with firearms.

Uh, last time we did that was for an hombre named Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan...

Originally posted by KidbrooklynI have no religious affiliation, so the christian definition of evil does not mean jack to me, and that is the only one that I know of.

So because you have no religious affiliation, you have no moral concept of evil?!?!

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915

Originally posted by cactuspete[quotemidHe actually used the same speech the day before during the Independence Spirit Awards (a Sundance clone hosted by John Waters). It went over well with that crowd, which is even more liberal than Hollywood.

I'd bet that most of the people in the crowd agreed with what he said. BUT... fearing backlash, and fearing a repeat of what happened to the Dixie Chicks, they booed. Certainly wouldn't want a widespread public backlash against Hollywood, would we? People might stop going to movies!

The lesson? Hit people in their pocketbooks, THEN you'll see how strong their convictions really are.

Originally posted by PalpatineWYou use the word "EVIL" in what seems to be a mocking way. Do you not believe in evil?

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."-- Theodore Roosevelt

Muslim fundamentalists believe very strongly in their religion and are willing to fight for it, even if it means killing thousands of innocent people simply for a difference of the image of God. Is this evil? I don't think so.

Well I sure do. And I'm as big of an athiest as they get.

Dying for a religion isn't evil. Heck, it's your life. Killing for religion, or a different image of God, is a completely different story, whether or not you happen to go along for the ride.

As for the 2000 elections, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon, and New Mexico were the four other ones that were decide by less than 10,000 votes (New Mexico by less than 1,000). However, Bush could have won them all, lost Florida, and still lost the electoral college 272-265, so the whole "they didn't recount ALL the close states" argument is pretty moot.

It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.

"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."-Malcom X

Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't add up

Maybe this is just me, but I thought some of the main arguments for this war are "get them before they get us" and "surely you don't think we should have to wait for them to attack us and kill our people before we go after them". (Which somehow became "liberate the Iraqi people".)

So yeah, remind me how many hands Iraq laid on us (unless you'd like to count the Gulf War, in which we also attacked first, and again didn't directly involve us, just that sweet precious oil!) before we went over there for our pre-emptive attack.

War aside, the Malcolm X quote is based on the idea of retaliation, not "go kill somebody when unprovoked". That's pretty easy to understand.

"B: No, I do not believe in evil in the absolute sense. I have no religious affiliation, so the christian definition of evil does not mean jack to me, and that is the only one that I know of. I do not think that man can be innately evil, it is just not in our nature. On the other hand, I do not know what is wrong with Saddam Hussein. He is sadistic if the reports are in fact true. But evil? I don't know about that. As for terrorists, I don't believe they are evil. Hopefully you wouldn't think I was evil for believing so strongly in something that I would be willing to die for it. Muslim fundamentalists believe very strongly in their religion and are willing to fight for it, even if it means killing thousands of innocent people simply for a difference of the image of God. Is this evil? I don't think so. But it is incredibly stupid and frustrating, not to mention counterproductive."

You didn't happen to go to school in the California public educational system, did you?

And by the way, why do you, or why should we *care at all* if what Muslim fundamentalists do is "stupid and counter-productive"? If there really is no objective basis for calling cetain actions right and certain others wrong, it seems their actions are just as "good" or "bad" as someone opening a carton of ice cream, or a dog taking a crap on my lawn. You would have to agree here that we really shouldn't care at all about them and should just let them go on doing what they do. And I don't know how rational that position is, Kidbrooklyn.

DMC

(edited by DMC on 25.3.03 1535)"I'm on this Zoloft thing, right? But I'm on that to keep me from killin' ya'll!" -Mike Tyson

Originally posted by asteroidboyI'd bet that most of the people in the crowd agreed with what he said. BUT... fearing backlash, and fearing a repeat of what happened to the Dixie Chicks, they booed. Certainly wouldn't want a widespread public backlash against Hollywood, would we? People might stop going to movies!

The lesson? Hit people in their pocketbooks, THEN you'll see how strong their convictions really are.

(edited by asteroidboy on 25.3.03 0829)

Didn't look to me like any of the actors were booing at all. The reactions I saw were very uncomfortable neutrality. I'd wager the people that were booing were the seat-fillers and whatnot.

Kansas-born and deeply ashamedThe last living La Parka Marka: HE raised the briefcase!

Originally posted by UbermonkeysSo KidBrooklyn is against war but his quote is:

"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."-Malcom X

Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't add up

Maybe this is just me, but I thought some of the main arguments for this war are "get them before they get us" and "surely you don't think we should have to wait for them to attack us and kill our people before we go after them". (Which somehow became "liberate the Iraqi people".)

So yeah, remind me how many hands Iraq laid on us (unless you'd like to count the Gulf War, in which we also attacked first, and again didn't directly involve us, just that sweet precious oil!) before we went over there for our pre-emptive attack.

War aside, the Malcolm X quote is based on the idea of retaliation, not "go kill somebody when unprovoked". That's pretty easy to understand.

EDIT: spelling

(edited by Ubermonkeys on 25.3.03 1823)

OK the first Gulf War was not an unprovoked attack. The nation of Iraq invaded the nation of Kuwait. The UN security council ordered Iraq to leave Kuwait or face military action to remove them from Kuwait. The Iraqis refused and a large COALITION of forces, led by the US, drove the Iraqis from Kuwait. Oil had nothing to do with it. The United States didnt gain any Oil by going to war. In fact because of the war the Worlds oil supply was probably decreased because two of the worlds oil suppliers were crippled by that war.

I really hate the "its all for oil" argument. We only get about 12% of our oil from the middle east. If we wanted to go to war to fight for some damn oil it would be easier to lob some tomahawks at Toronto and Ottawa instead of Baghdad and Tikrit.

101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) "Screaming Eagle"

The 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, provides forcible entry capability through heliborne Ďair assaultí operations. Capable of inserting a 4,000 soldier combined arms task force, 150-kilometers into enemy terrain in one lift, and possessing 281 helicopters, including three battalions of Apache attack helicopters, this division is the most versatile in the Army. For this reason, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) is the division most in demand by combatant commanders. The 101st stands as the Army's and world's only air assault division with unequaled strategic and tactical mobility.

OK the first Gulf War was not an unprovoked attack. The nation of Iraq invaded the nation of Kuwait. The UN security council ordered Iraq to leave Kuwait or face military action to remove them from Kuwait. The Iraqis refused and a large COALITION of forces, led by the US, drove the Iraqis from Kuwait. Oil had nothing to do with it. The United States didnt gain any Oil by going to war. In fact because of the war the Worlds oil supply was probably decreased because two of the worlds oil suppliers were crippled by that war.

I really hate the "its all for oil" argument. We only get about 12% of our oil from the middle east. If we wanted to go to war to fight for some damn oil it would be easier to lob some tomahawks at Toronto and Ottawa instead of Baghdad and Tikrit.

But it's such a cute, baseless liberal fairy tale! What will the liberals do without this fairy tale? Actually have to resort to facts? *gasp*

"The time for debate is really beforehand. Obviously history will speak on whether this was the right thing or the wrong thing, but right now (the soldiers) are out there. Support 'em. There's plenty of time for commentary later."-David Robinson

War aside, the Malcolm X quote is based on the idea of retaliation, not "go kill somebody when unprovoked". That's pretty easy to understand.

RDC2:

OK the first Gulf War was not an unprovoked attack.

See that "War aside" thing wrote up there? That last paragraph was entirely devoted to trying to explain Kidbrooklyn's sig. "War aside" means I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WAR RIGHT NOW.

RDC2:

The UN security council ordered Iraq to leave Kuwait or face military action to remove them from Kuwait. The Iraqis refused and a large COALITION of forces, led by the US, drove the Iraqis from Kuwait.

Hey, good job United States! What great pals of the UN we were. BEST FRIENDS 4EVER

I call bullshit on oil having "nothing to do with it". Why'd we go help out Kuwait instead of any of the other bullshit going on in the world? Why weren't we working to prevent any of the other Saddams of the world from dicking around? Now GWB has to try and clean all that shit up. He's said when we're done with Iraq, that we'll take on all evil in the world, and I think that's commendable. If we can be a bully for good taking out all the bullies for evil, I'm all for it, as long as he's consistent and follows through by taking out all the evil. I don't agree with the idea of it in principle, but if we're fair and treat all dictators this way, then I'm on board.

I'd also call bullshit on the its "all for oil" argument, at least now. (Until the Halliburton contract details come out.) There's obviously a lot more to it, like revenge, distraction (a political tool, not just a Republican one), and other self-serving items that really aren't that necessary. But, Iraq has more oil reserves than anybody else in the world not named Saudi Arabia, and that's without most of the country even being checked for oil... and it could be all ours! (Or at least our countries businesses who have their hands in the right place.) It's just another point of convenience. They might be so, so far away, but people would hate the US less for taking over evil Iraq than poor little Canada. Despite the fact that Iraq's army would give more resistance, the weather is so much nicer there.

And let me say, rockdotcom_2.0 comes off SO much better than kaz here in presenting a case for his argument rather than crying out "liberal".

Originally posted by UbermonkeysAnd let me say, rockdotcom_2.0 comes off SO much better than kaz here in presenting a case for his argument rather than crying out "liberal".

Maybe that's because he made the entire case. There wasn't much of substance I could add. But the facts remain. We didn't swim in pools of oil after the first Gulf War, but certain people think that we are in this one just because of the oil.

Then again, I've seen some conspiracy theorists claim Osama was innocent and we set him up just to get the Afghani oil. After all, look at how low the price of oil became after that war! *goes to fill up his tank, pays 1.70 a gallon for the cheap stuff* But I'm sure they were logic and fact loving liberals. Bottom line, it's a baseless bullshit argument thrown about trying to undercut anything a Republican does internationally.

When facts and history show that something isn't going to happen, and yet people stick to that like their bible, yes I'm going to take cheap shots. Just the way my logic-loving small l libertarian mind thinks.

"The time for debate is really beforehand. Obviously history will speak on whether this was the right thing or the wrong thing, but right now (the soldiers) are out there. Support 'em. There's plenty of time for commentary later."-David Robinson

Maybe that's because he made the entire case. There wasn't much of substance I could add.

That's my line!

Then again, I've seen some conspiracy theorists claim Osama was innocent and we set him up just to get the Afghani oil. After all, look at how low the price of oil became after that war! *goes to fill up his tank, pays 1.70 a gallon for the cheap stuff* But I'm sure they were logic and fact loving liberals. Bottom line, it's a baseless bullshit argument thrown about trying to undercut anything a Republican does internationally.

I'm in total agreement that the Osama claim offered by the conspiracy theorists is a bullshit baseless argument. I don't think is quite the same. I also don't think that gas prices are absolutely cut and dry like that. How much we have isn't going to offer an absolute fix on how much we pay. Competetion, greed, and so much more, even fear, all affect that. On September 11th, which I realize is a special case, prices at some Michigan gas stations were upped to 5 dollars a gallon. Point is, any crazy asshole can try to gouge us all they want for what they have, no matter how much of it they may or may not have.

My point (if I had one) is that using "liberal" or "conservative" to make a point isn't such a hot way to go about things. It comes off like a soundbite where you're willing to lay blame on a group of people that you're trying to demonize just for the sake of argument. Grouping people together like that is dangerous. (See Iraqi ambassador thread.) I think Michael Moore (this thread used to be about him, right?) would consider himself more "liberal" than conservative, and I'd say the same about myself, if pressed. I voted in the last presidential election, but not for Gore. I don't give a shit about Florida and recounts and what's done is done. I disagree with the generally labeled "liberal" opinion in other ways. But handing out a label just offers a nice and tidy way to group everyone that you don't agree with together. And I guess now I'm just as stupid as the Osama conspiracy theorists, because they're liberals, right?

This is just me, but I'd prefer being called an idiot by name and my opinions idiotic instead of bothering to bundle me in as someone in a group with opinions that apparently have already been attached to me by somebody else.

The UN security council ordered Iraq to leave Kuwait or face military action to remove them from Kuwait.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only time I heard about the UNSC ordering any military action was the Korean Conflict, and even then the UNSC only obtained a collective security with 4 yays (USA, UK, France, Republic of China (Taiwan))and 1 abstentia (USSR), and that was the only collective security in the history of the security council ever...

maybe you meant something else, or I was definatly thinking of something else...

The UN security council ordered Iraq to leave Kuwait or face military action to remove them from Kuwait.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only time I heard about the UNSC ordering any military action was the Korean Conflict, and even then the UNSC only obtained a collective security with 4 yays (USA, UK, France, Republic of China (Taiwan))and 1 abstentia (USSR), and that was the only collective security in the history of the security council ever...

maybe you meant something else, or I was definatly thinking of something else...

rikidozan has it right as the Gulf war was only the second use of force by one or more member nations against another in the history of the UN.

if "Washington is a Hollywood for ugly people," then, considering the remarks coming out of Tinseltown about Iraq, "Hollywood is a Washington for the simpleminded."John McCain

Fictious...Funny how no one has argured that since it was posted that the production facilities were bogus.

Why is it that some people seem to foget that the government has made a career out of lieing?

Hell, they have been doing it since they stole the land from the Native Americans. And NOW people are believing that the Bush Admin will suddenly start telling the truth?

Little naive don't you think?

Naive is the person who judges this country based solely on what its done wrong, when the record of what its done right is far longer. Naive is your conspiratorial attitude towards the government, as apparently it only applies to Republicans. Naive is re-posting that asinine link.

If you paid any attention at all to this 24/7 cable news converage, you'd realize that all manner of things get reported which are later proven false. Witness yesterday, when we were told that 1,000 armored vehicles were bearing down on our troops. This morning I've learned they were apparently pick-up trucks, and now we're not even sure where they're going.

Why is it that you forget that the United States has made a career out of preserving your freedom?

(edited by PalpatineW on 27.3.03 1749)"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

Originally posted by PalpatineWWhy is it that you forget that the United States has made a career out of preserving your freedom?

(edited by PalpatineW on 27.3.03 1749)

Is that "Glory, glory hallelujah" playing in the background?

Sure we have done some good things in our history, but we have done some off-the-chart evil things as well. What pisses me off is when we point the "holier than thou" finger at everyone else when we have our own skeletons in our closet... as if we have some monopoly on morality.

And I do not feel any sense of partiotism or pride in my country for what we are doing in Iraq right now... I am ashamed and embarrassed that I live in the most powerful country in history, and we still cannot find another way to solve our problems. I didn't like it with Clinton, and I sure as hell don't like it now.

The military is not fighting for my freedom, nor is George Bush and his cronies (I don't care how many times they try to scare the hell out of me). And I am one of the 270 million plus people who are paying for this war while Cheney's friends at Halliburton are standing to make millions, if not billions.

No matter which way you try to spin it... the people who are standing to benefit the most are not the tax payers in this country or the people living in Iraq. It's Bush and friends... and that's messed up.